Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7487978" data-attributes="member: 6919838">The reason the &quot;However, while the book doesn't explicitly say you keep everything, nothing says you lose anything either.&quot; doesn't resonate with me is two-fold.First, the book absolutely hammers in that the pact and agreement are the source of the power - you dont get power without the pact - period. They go hand in hand. So, the necessity of the pact is clearly and solidly established.Similarly, the service for power is also established and even emphasized at the end as a driving force for the adventurer going out.So, those two things even tho you present them as opposite sides of the coin - one has quite a bit of emphasis - no pact np power - pretty clear.the other - pact over keep power - not at all really emphasized or explicitly stated.Second, look at the cleric text in the same places... ever see the rules about losing your cleric abilities if you tick off your divinity? there are none. matter of fact there aqre a whole lot of similarities between how the cleric intro is worded and how the warlock is - including following the goals, demands, etc and how that can lead into adventuring.So, if i were to say to my warlock players &quot;because there is no explicit statement in your PHB intro that you can lose anything at all if you tell your patron to sod off then as Gm i must accept you cannot have those taken away from you if you do not follow your patron&quot; then i would be forced to give the same answer to my clerics cuz they also have no such explicit reference to losing abilities. And there is no way in my worlds that i am going to ignore tons of text linking in both cases power to the source and serving the goals of the source power etc etc etc and then tell clerics and warlocks they get to keep all their powers regardless of how they deal with their &quot;provider.&quot;To me i go with the weight of the evidence and not the lack of evidence. others can do what they want.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7487978, member: 6919838"] The reason the "However, while the book doesn't explicitly say you keep everything, nothing says you lose anything either." doesn't resonate with me is two-fold. First, the book absolutely hammers in that the pact and agreement are the source of the power - you dont get power without the pact - period. They go hand in hand. So, the necessity of the pact is clearly and solidly established. Similarly, the service for power is also established and even emphasized at the end as a driving force for the adventurer going out. So, those two things even tho you present them as opposite sides of the coin - one has quite a bit of emphasis - no pact np power - pretty clear. the other - pact over keep power - not at all really emphasized or explicitly stated. Second, look at the cleric text in the same places... ever see the rules about losing your cleric abilities if you tick off your divinity? there are none. matter of fact there aqre a whole lot of similarities between how the cleric intro is worded and how the warlock is - including following the goals, demands, etc and how that can lead into adventuring. So, if i were to say to my warlock players "because there is no explicit statement in your PHB intro that you can lose anything at all if you tell your patron to sod off then as Gm i must accept you cannot have those taken away from you if you do not follow your patron" then i would be forced to give the same answer to my clerics cuz they also have no such explicit reference to losing abilities. And there is no way in my worlds that i am going to ignore tons of text linking in both cases power to the source and serving the goals of the source power etc etc etc and then tell clerics and warlocks they get to keep all their powers regardless of how they deal with their "provider." To me i go with the weight of the evidence and not the lack of evidence. others can do what they want. [/QUOTE]

Verification